I'm confused. I'm from the old school of umpiring: the benefit of the doubt always goes to batsman. If you're not convinced 100%, you cant rule against the bastman.

But lately the norm seems to be changing. Take the Bashar out for example. You couldn't be 100% sure that his foot was outside the line although the vdo evidence did suggest that he might be out. See, there's the rub coz you cant be totally certain. A lot of the commentators think that these are "brave" decisions and as long as the umpire is consistent with both the sides, it's fine. But the conservative in me still cries out in pain whnever i see these brave decisions. Am I wrong to react like this or should I embrace this new breeed of decision making process?Que te parece?

roaring_tiger

February 1, 2005, 05:40 AM

commentators said 'brave decision'...because..the 3rd umpire was from bd and he gave basher out...even though it was not so clear....
normally home umpires find any reason not to give the batsman out....so they said it was brave decision...
at the end of the day bd won that match, so we also appreciate the 3rd ump for his brave decision...